jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

Home
Get A Printable Dictionary
Search Best Words
Recent Changes
How You Can Help
valsi - All
valsi - Preferred Only
natlang - All
natlang - Preferred Only
Languages
XML Export
user Listing
Report Bugs
Utilities
Status
Help
Admin Request
Create Account
Discussion of "ji'o'e"

Comment #1: ma selmaho
gleki (Fri Jun 26 17:10:35 2015)
Comment #2: Re: ma selmaho
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 04:13:14 2015)

gleki wrote:
>

mi na birti djuno .i ma'oi je ku ja ma'oi joi vau xu

Comment #5: Re: ma selmaho
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 07:06:48 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> >
>
> mi na birti djuno .i ma'oi je ku ja ma'oi joi vau xu

(The issue is that the definition that I originally and currently have
provided allows for both logical and non-logical connectives to be
referenced by this word. But they belong to different selma'o. It seems
better to me to allow for the word to reference any member of the
super-selma'o CONNECTIVE than for it to be restricted to one selma'o. But
this might be bad for the grammar or otherwise undesirable. If it is deemed
so, I propose that this word be assigned to selma'o JE, referencing only
logical connectives, and that a new word joi'o'e be created in selma'o
JOI such that it references only non-logical connectives. On the other
hand, if ji can be answered with joi, perhaps we only need the former.

(Side note: I have two cases where I want to establish super-selma'o. The
first is this case of connectives. The second is the case of letterals and
PA digits, which should be able to act in concert so as to form strings
together, but which have somewhat different grammars.)

Another issue is that this word does not distinguish between contexts in a
sentence. According to the current CLL, I should maybe have invented
dofferer words for .e, je, etc. However, many Lojbanists presently
agree that the system is too complicated and inelegant, having proposed
several versions of essentially the same solution, which simplifies all of
these into one set of words. In this newer case, this word works fine. Even
in the old CLL case, it could be argued that this word works fine (if it
references any allowed member of super-selma'o CONNECTIVE) because the
grammatical context of its usage (including nearby terminators) dictate
from which selma'o permitted referents can be drawn.)

Comment #3: .i ji'o'e
gleki (Sat Jun 27 05:46:29 2015)

how is .iji'o'e different from .i?

Comment #4: Re: .i ji'o'e
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 06:54:16 2015)

gleki wrote:
> how is .iji'o'e different from .i?

I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim about
their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They must
be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual
relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived logically
from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju implies
that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply anything
about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts. Thus
.iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the statements,
even if it does not say what it is.

Comment #6: Re: .i ji'o'e
gleki (Sat Jun 27 07:34:37 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > how is .iji'o'e different from .i?
>
> I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim about
> their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They must

> be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual
> relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived
logically
> from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju implies
> that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply
anything
> about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts.
Thus
> .iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the statements,

> even if it does not say what it is.

I suppose variables declared using da or goi are preserved across
iji'o'e sentences?

Comment #7: Re: .i ji'o'e
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 07:36:49 2015)

gleki wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > gleki wrote:
> > > how is .iji'o'e different from .i?
> >
> > I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim about
> > their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They
must
>
> > be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual
> > relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived
> logically
> > from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju
implies
> > that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply
> anything
> > about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts.
> Thus
> > .iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the
statements,
>
> > even if it does not say what it is.
>
> I suppose variables declared using da or goi are preserved across
> iji'o'e sentences?

If they are preserved over .ije, then yes. This word is meant to function
exactly as (at least) je does, but without the semantics of je (being
elliptical/referencing any connective instead of merely "and").

Comment #8: Re: .i ji'o'e
gleki (Sat Jun 27 07:47:04 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> gleki wrote:
> > krtisfranks wrote:
> > > gleki wrote:
> > > > how is .iji'o'e different from .i?
> > >
> > > I figure that just .i separates bridi without making any claim
about
> > > their relation to one another. They could be utterly unrelated. They
> must
> >
> > > be explicitly connected together in order to guarantee some mutual
> > > relationship, such as both being true together, one being derived
> > logically
> > > from the other, being mutually exclusive, etc. Of course, .iju
> implies
> > > that one claim is independent of the other (and it does not imply
> > anything
> > > about the reverse), but even independence is a relationship of sorts.

> > Thus
> > > .iji'o'e does explicitly guarantee a connection between the
> statements,
> >
> > > even if it does not say what it is.
> >
> > I suppose variables declared using da or goi are preserved across
> > iji'o'e sentences?
>
> If they are preserved over .ije, then yes. This word is meant to
function
> exactly as (at least) je does, but without the semantics of je (being

> elliptical/referencing any connective instead of merely "and").


Another option could be to extend the grammar of STAG BO_CLAUSE so that "mi
do'e bo klama" becomes gendra.

Alta grammar now supports it instead of yours "mi ji'o'e do'e bo klama"
since joik_ek can now be elided.

The expansion is just mi klama i do'e bo do klama

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 70 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?